Thanks Philip. I'll try drilling out shooting distances and conditions, and hopefully this chimp can learn! Re: f16. If set to 3m you get focus from infinity down to around 1.5 meters, so I think you can understand when it might be useful.

philip_pj wrote:
35mm is getting close to a diffraction trade-off for such deep dof. Tim Ashley is more fussy than I am and he is happy with f11, so maybe try a few brackets - see if you lose much with f16.

in my test shots going from f/11 to f/16 usually softens things so much that the extra dof isn't noticeable. and it's definitely better to focus at 3m at f/11 than infinity at f/16.

Firstly, I will say I've never cared about diffraction and likely never will. So I have no problem shooting at f16, f22 or wherever on a lens if I feel it's required so. However, I think I will test this properly, again just basic things re: judging distances as Philip suggested before, and working out what aperture would work best for me.

I do feel like if they had more options between 1 meter and infinity, it would make life easier. But then, perhaps pre-focusing with AF is a realistic option too. I think I will stick with MF for the time being though.

Upon reviewing the few images I did take, it seems the OVF works well. Judging space/timing etc is what I wanted from it, and so there is one positive.

Jonas BRegistered: Jun 05, 2005Total Posts: 2539Country: Sweden

ricardovaste wrote:
Firstly, I will say I've never cared about diffraction and likely never will. So I have no problem shooting at f16, f22 or wherever on a lens if I feel it's required so. However, I think I will test this properly, again just basic things re: judging distances as Philip suggested before, and working out what aperture would work best for me. (...)

f/22... really? I think f/11 would do better in nearly all situations assumed you focus at something at a relevant distance. Doesn't sebboh's example above show that? Then, of course, when shooting in the streets we are looking more for timing and situations than the technically most brilliant image. There is something with the old saying "f/8 and be there" (also if it mis-quoted or often taken out of the original context). Testing this properly is a good idea.

The funny thing is that "f/8 and be there" was a quote from Weegee, who shot 4x5 with flash, but it does still kind of work for 35mm, non-flash photography.

This conversation motivated me to play around with my RX1 a bit today, and, being someone who generally keeps things simple, I kind of had an obvious "ah-ha!" moment today with my RX1. I'm not sure that I've ever used multipoint AF with any of my cameras before, including DSLRs, but, after playing with it for a while today, it seems to work really great with the "dumb" OVF, especially when stopped down a bit and in good light. Of course, I wouldn't trust it for really shallow DOF stuff, but I'm usually not in a hurry in those situations, and the multi-point AF with the OVF may be a good solution for my quick grab shots in the f5.6-f11 range.

Of course, the odd thing with the RX1 is that it always AFs at shooting aperture, no matter the light (my NEX and Fujis behaved differently.) The wider the aperture set, the faster the AF, so it's a balance.

Jonas BRegistered: Jun 05, 2005Total Posts: 2539Country: Sweden

I didn't recall his name, but yes, and I mentioned was taken out of original context. Just sayin' - I don't want to be lumped together with those not knowing at all what they are talking about.
I have never tried the multi spot AF funktion. I neverlier had any luck with that earlier. And with a dumb optical finder... doesn' it feel strange not having an idea about on what the camera focuses?

Jonas B wrote:
I didn't recall his name, but yes, and I mentioned was taken out of original context. Just sayin' - I don't want to be lumped together with those not knowing at all what they are talking about.
I have never tried the multi spot AF funktion. I neverlier had any luck with that earlier. And with a dumb optical finder... doesn' it feel strange not having an idea about on what the camera focuses?

Oh, I wasn't trying to correct you or anything about the Weegee comment. Just a fun fact.

For quick grab or street photography shots, I think I can trust the multi-point AF to get pretty close when stopped down, but I'll have to take it for a spin. I can't imagine that it would be worse than zone focusing, when it comes to approximating focus distance, unless there's a large object at the front of the scene that throws things off. I vaguely remember Mike Johnston saying that he shot his old Panny GF1 this way with the OVF, but I'd have to look it up. At wider apertures, I'd definitely use center AF.

Jonas BRegistered: Jun 05, 2005Total Posts: 2539Country: Sweden

douglasf13 wrote:
Oh, I wasn't trying to correct you or anything about the Weegee comment. Just a fun fact.
(...)

No problems.
It's funny how different we all are. I would never have bought the RZ1 if there hadn't been a good tilt-able EVF available. I love the fact I see the image at working aperture all the time, that I get a reasonably good idea about the DOF in the viewfinder (still bright, no DOF control button to press) and that get the technical info I need. Then I read about f/16 or worse, optical finders with no bright lines and multi spot auto focusing... Clearly everything goes! Cheers!

ricardovaste wrote:
Firstly, I will say I've never cared about diffraction and likely never will. So I have no problem shooting at f16, f22 or wherever on a lens if I feel it's required so. However, I think I will test this properly, again just basic things re: judging distances as Philip suggested before, and working out what aperture would work best for me.

my point about diffraction is that you don't actually gain any dof at 35mm by stopping down past f/11 (ok. really f/13 in my experiments) when shooting hyperfocally. everything gets less sharp from 1m (and probably closer to) to infinity when you stop down to f/16. in my experience the same is true in 28mm and below range on film.

if you are focused on infinity stopping down from f/11 to f/16 will make things 1m away look sharper, but if you are focused hyperfocally only objects at near macro distances will get sharper from stopping down from f/11 to f/16.

the only benefit I have found for stopping down past f/13 ever (with the rx1) is dof for macro and getting longer exposures.

anyway, my point is: if you are trying to get greater dof you will be much better served by presetting you focus closer than by stopping down past f/11.

philip_pjRegistered: Apr 03, 2009Total Posts: 3411Country: Australia

f8 and be square, yeah yeah.
Ok, two disparate views on diffraction I want to put to you, both as it turns out by guys I respect here on FM Alt. 1. 'f22! you will blow away all the fine detail.', and 2. 'I use to a lot and know what the results are and like them.'

Too much has been written about it, it's very complex - airy disks, CoC, enlargement ratios, etc. Just see what you like, but from a viewing of a lot of RX1 shots last night, unless you're using macro and need much more dof than usual or need to focus very close and still need some good depth to the subject, even a typical subject focused at 3 metres allows plenty of front/back dof at f8/f11 and often even f5.6 for satisfying results.

Hyperfocal, my favourite guy is Harold Merklinger, and in general, I like his techniques, esp 'favour infinity' if far detail is needed and you have large objects near. Harold Merklinger is the author of: Ins and Outs of Focus (free pdf online).

But for focus, every image is different, which is why the subject has been controversial for so long, and why users just want a formula that works. Hyperfocal is not a panacea, more a crutch. Only the focal plane is truly sharp, and it gets more so with every sensor generation.

Jonas B wrote:douglasf13 wrote:
Oh, I wasn't trying to correct you or anything about the Weegee comment. Just a fun fact.
(...)

No problems.
It's funny how different we all are. I would never have bought the RZ1 if there hadn't been a good tilt-able EVF available. I love the fact I see the image at working aperture all the time, that I get a reasonably good idea about the DOF in the viewfinder (still bright, no DOF control button to press) and that get the technical info I need. Then I read about f/16 or worse, optical finders with no bright lines and multi spot auto focusing... Clearly everything goes! Cheers!

I'm with you. A year ago, I never imagined I'd be so okay with shooting a camera with a non-tilt LCD and a "dumb" OVF, although my OVF does have brightlines, at least.

philip_pj wrote:
Hyperfocal, my favourite guy is Harold Merklinger, and in general, I like his techniques, esp 'favour infinity' if far detail is needed and you have large objects near. Harold Merklinger is the author of: Ins and Outs of Focus (free pdf online).

But for focus, every image is different, which is why the subject has been controversial for so long, and why users just want a formula that works. Hyperfocal is not a panacea, more a crutch. Only the focal plane is truly sharp, and it gets more so with every sensor generation.

oh definitely. don't use hyperfocal focusing unless you're in a hurry. if you're shooting landscape and want to extract the most detail possible you should probably put focus on the most important part of the scene and then put a little magnified liveview box over the most distant part of the scene from that that you want to be in focus and stop down till it looks sharp enough.

Jonas B wrote:
Then I read about f/16 or worse, optical finders with no bright lines and multi spot auto focusing... Clearly everything goes! Cheers!
You should tag along with me one day and we can go shoot at f32

I'm usually one of those people that have my aperture set around f8 and live with it there. Sometimes I'll go to 11 but usually it's around 8 depending what I'm doing. I mean from time to time for longer exposures like mentioned I will stop down past 11 just so I can get the 30secs or so

Jonas BRegistered: Jun 05, 2005Total Posts: 2539Country: Sweden

It's been a while since everybody showed their cameras/tools/babies. My RX is heavily pimped. I've never owned a camera that expensive and still in need of such a lot of extras to become usable! I bought the EVF (essential) the same day I bought the camera. Then I had a long boring week waiting for the grip (essential). In the meanwhile I smashed two old worthless UV filters I found in a drawer and mounted a step down ring.Together they work as an efficient hood and protection device. When the grip arrived I had to get some friction tape (no less) to make it all comfortable and secure to carry, or grab quickly. Finally I bought a soft release. I have used them earlier with my Leica cameras but the old ones were too big so I finally settled for the USD 10 thing Douglas recommended some time ago (Thank you!).

Yes, I have worked hard to turn the smallest FF camera into a bigger contraption. I lost even more money but in return I got a great sensor with a great lens on an usable body which it is a joy to handle.

No, I have no problems understanding the majority of the RX1 and RX1R cameras out there look very different from mine. Anyone?

Looks good Jonas ;-). Alas, better to have something working how you like and sacrifice some small ideals about size etc. :o)

Whilst we're on accessories, anyone care to recommend a nice strap? I took the one off my hi-matic, but it seems to sit a little to low and bounce around a bit (whilst around my neck), so probably need something that I can adjust shorter.

Sweet! Nothing sexier than to see a pimped out RX1! I have recently started using a larger bag very similar in size to this Domke Satchel, the Ona Bowery. I'm also using the step ring idea for a lens hood but with only one 37mm empty filter on top.

ricardovaste wrote:
Looks good Jonas ;-). Alas, better to have something working how you like and sacrifice some small ideals about size etc. :o)

Whilst we're on accessories, anyone care to recommend a nice strap? I took the one off my hi-matic, but it seems to sit a little to low and bounce around a bit (whilst around my neck), so probably need something that I can adjust shorter.

Oddly, I sort of like the cheapish Sony strap that comes with the RX1. It's very light and has that very grippable, rubber like material on the back so it does not slip/ slide at all. I have more expensive straps laying around but the Sony strap seems to work fine.